What qualifies as good retention ?
I'm sure that the response to this is "Whatever your senior level executives consider good retention."
I listened to the podcast and I heard Mike and mark trying to say that the manager is more influential in retention than "the system" of the organization.
I can say that in my field we have a great deal of built in rotation for the para-professionals.
I work at an academic university library. We often hire employees that are students; yes, for full-time and part time positions.
We usually have a large gap between our "professional staff" and our "para-professional" staff.
The university system is set up in such a way that there are many people hired on as para-professional mostly to get the tuition benefit.
In fact, when an employee states this clearly, and we approve their paperwork and we encourage them to get their degrees and then move on. This happens with full-time and part-time staff.
And "the system" supports this. We have often lobbied for better pay for these positions and have been told that we don't need to because the tuition benefit is a sufficient attractor and we don't expect folks to stay long anyway.
I'd rather make the full-time positions attractive to non-students so that we can have better long term retention.
How can a manager claim a "good" retention rate when so many of the positions are actually expected to rotate every 1-3 years.
Does this become a relative idea ? - Where if we can keep the same person in that position for the full 2-6 years of their degree (or however long it takes) we should consider that good retention ? And consider it a true success if they get their degrees and move up and on ?
What do you all think ?